Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

June 2018

Return of income – Delay of 1232 days in filing return – Condonation of delay – Assessee – NRI filed an application for condonation of delay of 1232 days in filing return on ground she was not in a position to file her returns on time due to severe financial crisis in United States of America and injuries sustained by her in an accident, enclosing a medical report in support of claim – Said application was rejected by CBDT on ground that medical certificate did not support case of assessee and that assessee had professional advisor available to her and, thus, required returns ought to have been filed within stipulated period – Though there was some lapse on part of assessee, that by itself would not be a factor to turn out plea for filing of return, when explanation offered was acceptable and genuine hardship was established – Delay to be condoned

By K. B. BHUJLE Advocate
Reading Time 4 mins

26.  Smt. Dr. Sudha Krishnaswamy vs. CCIT; [2018]
92 taxmann.com 306 (Karn):

Date of order: 27th
March, 2018

A. Ys.: 2010-11 to 2012-13

Sections 119 and 139 of I. T.
Act 1961

 

Return of income – Delay of
1232 days in filing return – Condonation of delay – Assessee – NRI filed an
application for condonation of delay of 1232 days in filing return on ground
she was not in a position to file her returns on time due to severe financial
crisis in United States of America and injuries sustained by her in an
accident, enclosing a medical report in support of claim – Said application was
rejected by CBDT on ground that medical certificate did not support case of
assessee and that assessee had professional advisor available to her and, thus,
required returns ought to have been filed within stipulated period – Though there
was some lapse on part of assessee, that by itself would not be a factor to
turn out plea for filing of return, when explanation offered was acceptable and
genuine hardship was established – Delay to be condoned

 

The assessee, a non-resident,
had filed a petition for condonation of delay u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax
Act, 1961 before Commissioner of Income Tax. She contended that she sold one
vacant site and being non-resident, purchaser of property had deducted income
tax as per provisions of section 195, which had resulted in a refund for A. Y.
2012-13. As regards A. Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12, it was submitted that she had
no taxable income and claimed that entire refund was relating to TDS from
interest and bank deposits. Accordingly, she requested to condone delay on
ground that she was not in a position to file her returns on time due to severe
financial crisis in United States of America and injuries sustained by her in
an accident, enclosing a medical report in support of the claim and direct
Assessing Officer to accept returns for aforesaid 3 years and process return of
income on merits and issue refund orders. Said application was rejected on
ground that assessee had professional advisor available to her and required returns
ought to have been filed within a stipulated period and, accordingly, rejected
the application relating to the three assessment years in question. The
assessee filed writ petitions challenging the orders of the Commissioner.

The Karnataka High Court allowed
the writ petitions and held as under:

 

“i)  It is not the case of the assessee that she is avoiding any
scrutiny of the returns. On the other hand, it is the case of the assessee that
she is entitled for refund, being a non-resident owing to the recession at U.S.
and the accidental injuries suffered, no returns were filed within the period
prescribed. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the
assessee-petitioner has obtained any undue advantage of the delay in filing the
income tax returns.

 

ii)   It is trite law that rendering substantial justice shall be
paramount consideration of the Courts as well as the Authorities rather than
rejecting on hyper-technicalities. It may be true that there was some lapse on
the part of assessee, that itself would not be a factor to turn out the plea
for filing of the return, when the explanation offered was acceptable and
genuine hardship was established. Sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for
condoning the delay is acceptable and the same cannot be rejected out-rightly
on technicalities.

 

iii)  Considering the overall circumstances, the delay of 1232 days in
filing the returns for the relevant assessment years in question is condoned
subject to denial of interest for the delayed period if found to be entitled
for refund.”

You May Also Like